Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The liveliest of three debates, yet still light on economic specifics. Meg Whitman still relies on script and is not concrete enough. Jerry Brown ahead on facts and particulars.

Those are a few of the assessments by political analysts after the final debate between California gubernatorial candidates Mr. Brown (D) and Ms. Whitman (R).

With three weeks until election day and Californians casting mail ballots now, this last matchup was seen as crucial to Whitman forging a comeback or to Brown cementing his fresh lead in Polls.

“Voters have a clear choice, but does Whitman come off as another Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who tried but ultimately fell short? And do voters see Brown a career pol who has done the job but is he 'old news and ancient history?' ”says Hal Dash of Cerrell & Associates, a Democratic strategy consulting firm. “Overall, Whitman and Brown had passion, a decent amount of specifics, but clearly both are struggling with a real economic recovery plan for California.”

Brokaw hits scandals head-on

Veteran moderator Tom Brokaw confronted the scandals hanging over each candidate’s head directly.

Brown apologized directly to Whitman and called a remark by a campaign aide caught on voice mail calling Whitman a “whore” "unfortunate." But he also bristled at Mr. Brokaw's suggestion that to women the word is as offensive as the "n-word" is to African Americans.

Whitman pounced, shaking her head and saying, "Women know exactly what's going on here," and called the word a "slur."

But Brokaw also put Whitman on the hot seat when he asked about her employing an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years. Brokaw asked Whitman how she intended to make good on her promise to hold businesses accountable for hiring undocumented workers when she couldn't do so herself.

She defended the hiring, saying it was through an employment agency and added that "this is one reason why we need a very good e-verify system" that will hold employers accountable.

A 'fresh approach' vs. a pragmatic veteran

Throughout the one-hour debate, Whitman tried to portray herself as the political outsider that would bring “a fresh approach, a different approach” to California’s entrenched problems and insisted Brown was a failed, lifelong politician. Brown kept touting himself as the pragmatic veteran with the experience to navigate the state’s intransigent budget process.

“I did eight budgets, I know how this is done,” said Brown.

When the debate turned to cutting state taxes, Brown turned to Whitman and asked: "Ms. Whitman, I'd like to ask you, how much money would you save" if investment and business startup taxes were cut, as she has proposed.

Whitman said: "I'm an investor, and investors will benefit from this, but so will job creators.

"My business is creating jobs, and yours is politics. You've been doing this for 40 years ... and you've been part of a war on jobs for 40 years," she said.

"If he goes to Sacramento, it will be the same old, same old," Whitman said at another point. "I've got a very detailed plan, and I think that's part of leadership."

Brown's comeback: "She doesn't have a plan. She said $14 billion in cuts, she doesn't say where; she says 40,000 layoffs, she doesn't say (where) ... and by the way, you've got to get the Legislature on board" or none of it will happen, he said.

Can Whitman close the gap?

On the factual level, “Brown won,” says Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. She says Whitman petered out at the end and was “engaged but often not directly responsive to Brokaw’s questions … Brokaw fact-checked her twice.”

How will the debate effect Whitman's chances? “Depends how closely people were listening and how much they know,” says Ms. O’Connor.

After the first debate, several commentators noted that Whitman passed up the opportunity to go after Brown for judicial appointments. “This time, she hit the issue more than once,” says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

However, he felt the studio audience was intrusive.

“The cheers and groans were an unnecessary theatrical touch and detracted from the substance of the debate," he says. "Fifty years ago, Nixon and Kennedy engaged in debates without any studio audience – a format better suited to a real exchange on the merits of policy.”

TSA REFORM: "DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK NOR MY TREASURES!"

NC DSS SYSTEM CASUALTIES...CHILDREN DON'T MATTER

REAL CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS; EQUALITY & JUSTICE FOR ALL!

POLITICAL WALL OF SHAME...PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY

THE TRUE COST OF WAR

ABOUT ME

Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!

WEBSITE LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,

Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.

No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.

NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:

Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………

The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)

People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.

To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:

When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.

Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.

This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.

Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)

(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.

I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.

I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!

If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!

Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.

NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.

BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.

This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.